I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.

this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.

Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.

emphasis added. again with the emotional language.

Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)

Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.

it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.

Adding on what Angrim said, let's not forget the absolute BS justification the Grand Alliance used here: "They are refusing to surrender to our terms, so we can do nothing else [emphasis mine] than razing them back to the newbie ring". There are always alternatives, if involved parties are willing to see them.

And in what way is this better than giving up two cities?

I'll be the first to admit that surrender terms were high after the Consone War, but I also note that the ones setting up the terms on behalf of the GA (barring HATHALDIR) weren't even participating in that war.

There is no justification for what some GA-alliances did in the last war.

At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...

And what was that?

Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"...

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.

Not true you say? I have no interest whatsoever in any of the parties now.. why would i be lying?

I know what i saw there, and i saw entire REGIONS being cleansed just because someone could flex their muscles...

I don't know if you're lying (as in saying something that you know to be untrue), but I do know that this war was not about supremacy. Any amount of destruction you saw was considered necessary in the pursuit of victory. And that goes for both sides of the war.

"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."

As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus. You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war. nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game. You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself. I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal). This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war. However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice. Either could have stopped the war at any time. In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors. In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost. I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides. Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.

I find it quite odd that you were troubled by the amount of destruction when you yourself made sure a Dlord player was completely wiped out because he had the nerve to send thieves to one of your towns because someone was thieving his towns for several weeks.

Quit pretending to play innocent, Ncrow is by far one of the most ruthless alliances in the game so far.

Adding on what Angrim said, let's not forget the absolute BS justification the Grand Alliance used here: "They are refusing to surrender to our terms, so we can do nothing else [emphasis mine] than razing them back to the newbie ring". There are always alternatives, if involved parties are willing to see them.

So what could we have done? Or better... what alternatives could we have tried that we didn't.

Captain Kindly wrote:

And in what way is this better than giving up two cities?

Most players were given the option to surrender individually without losing cities. Is that not better?

Captain Kindly wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that surrender terms were high after the Consone War, but I also note that the ones setting up the terms on behalf of the GA (barring HATHALDIR) weren't even participating in that war.

That's simply not true. In a few cases help was sought from third parties to help negotiate an end to hostilities. That's not even close to having non-combatants dictate the terms of surrender.

Captain Kindly wrote:

There is no justification for what some GA-alliances did in the last war.

And this is digging it all up again.

The Grand Alliance did what was needed in order to achieve victory. The cost may have been great, but both sides are to blame for this. I cannot deny that more could have been done to limit the amount of destruction; but I will have to disagree with anyone who claims that this was solely the GA's responsibility.

"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."

Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that ), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting...

Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that ), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting...

We on the losing side know what was done and are ok with that. We are going on and doing things we want to do. The victors know what they did and need to deal with it themselves. You reap what you sow. The surrender terms were absolutely crazy and if I did not get help would never have been able to afford it.

Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that ), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting...

We on the losing side know what was done and are ok with that. We are going on and doing things we want to do. The victors know what they did and need to deal with it themselves. You reap what you sow. The surrender terms were absolutely crazy and if I did not get help would never have been able to afford it.

You know full well that we ultimately held you and your former alliance responsible for the enormous toll of the great war. It's rather obvious that you wouldn't be afforded the same treatment as the other alliances.

H? members who surrendered early paid a fraction of what the rest paid later on. With one clear exception being the player who had cities in Djebeli, Larn and Elijal.

edit: improved for clarity.

Edited by Tamaeon - 13 Jan 2015 at 18:40

"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum